iBusiness, 2013, 5, 119-125 Published Online December 2013 (http://www.scirp.org/journal/ib) http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/ib.2013.54015 Open Access IB 119 The Conceptual Model of Influencing Factors and Influencing Mechanism on Team Decision-Making Quality Mediated by Information Sharing Peihua Dai1,2 1Southwest Jiaotong University, Chengdu, China; 2Chongqing Technology and Business University, Chongqing, China. Email: daiph128@sohu.com Received August 15th, 2013; revised September 13th, 2013; accepted October 10th, 2013 Copyright © 2013 Peihua Dai. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. ABSTRACT Searching for the influ encing factors on team decision-making quality is the hot issue in acad emic circles and business circles. Based on summarizing the main influencing factors on team decision-making quality, this thesis divides the main influencing factors into team composition factors and team process factors and researches the internal relationship between them. Targeted at the field decision making, this thesis analyzes the influencing process of the main factors on decision-making quality, and constructs the conceptual model of “influencing factors-information sharing-decision- making quality”. This model no t only combines the main influ encing factors correctly, but also exposes the “b lack box” between the influencing factors and decision-making quality in field decision making, which can make up for no rela- tive research for the field decision making in the previous studies. Keywords: Decision-Making Quality; Compo s ition Factors; Process Factors; Information Sharing 1. Introduction Studies of team decision-making originated from the re- searches of a small group in traditional so cial psycholog y. As more and more organization structures are formed by teams, the studies on team decision-making by industrial and organizational psychologists are more and more widely [1]. Lots of scholars researched the influencing factors on team decision-making from different view- points and got abundant achievements, such as the lead- ership’s desire of power, team cohesion, individual levels of team members, team size, discuss form, team conflict, team communication and so on [2,3]. However, most of the scholars only investigated the effects of one or two factors on decision-making quality through empirical me- thods. There has been a lack of systematical review and classification in the main influencing factors, and a lack of researches on the internal relationship between the main factors. When researching the influencing mechanism of the main factors on team decision-making performance, scholars usually selected mediators from the paths of information communication and emotional response, such as team transactive memory, task reflexivity, team mental model, team cohesion and so on [4]. But all these mediators need the long time to accumulate, not suitable for field decision making. Up to now, there is little re- search on mediators for field decision making and rela- tive analysis. In view of above pr oblems in the studies of team deci- sion making, this thesis: 1) tries to summarize the influ- encing factors on decision-making qu ality and divide the main influencing factors into team composition factors and team process factors, and researches the internal re- lationship between them; 2) researches the influencing mechanism of the main factors on decision-making qual- ity during the process of field decision making, and con- structs the conceptual model of “influencing factors-in- formation sharing-decision-making quality” (see Figure 1). This model not only combines the main influencing factors correctly, but also exposes the “black box” be- tween the influencing factors and decision-making qual- ity in field decision making, which can make up for no relative research for th e field decision making in the pr e- vious studies and provide a new interpretation for the influencing factors how to effect the team decision-
The Conceptual Model of Influencing Factors and Influencing Mechanism on Team Decision-Making Quality Mediated by Information Sharing 120 Team decision-makin quality Information sharing Team com ositio n factors Cognitive ability Task knowledge Leadership style Team roces s factors Shared vision Team conflict Decision-making procedure Communication media Figure 1. Conceptual model of influencing factors and in- fluencing mechanism on team decision-making quality. making quality. 2. Information Sharing and Team Decision-Making Quality The team decision making was an “information exchang- ing project” for completing a task [5]. The characteristic of team field decision making is focusing on field com- munication and it makes different information sharing very important. Owing to the different status and respon- sibility in team, each team member will get different kinds of information. The information includes the com- mon information that is known by all the members, and unique information that is only known by individual member. When team members sharing all information he knows with others, especially the unique information, all members will understand the task contents and aims deeply, and the quality of final d ecision will be improved. So, whether the information related with decision can be got smoothly and u sed effectively will influ ence the team decision-making quality directly. In the “Information Sampling Mode”, the sampling information was classified as shared information and unshared information. In the subsequent studies, Stasser proved the roles of unique information sharing on team decision making repeatedly. Stasser & Stewart researched the unique information sharing time accounting for the proportion of the discussion time, and found the propor- tion was positively correlated with decision-making qua- lity [3]. In 1998, Stewart & Stasser introduced another testing method, separating the unique information men- tioned at least once from all information mentioned at least once, and found in this method, the positive correla- tion of unique information sharing and decision-making quality was more remarkable [6]. Lu et al. made a meta- analysis of 21 studies, and considered whether the times of unique information mentioned or the times of unique information discussed was positive correlated with deci- sion-making quality [7]. H1: Unique information sharing is positively corre- lated with team decision-making quality. 3. Relationship of Team Composition Factors, Information Sharing and Team Decision-Making Quality Team composition factors refer to the factors that deter- mined in the early days of the team, mainly including individual level of team members and leadership style. The individual level of team members includes the task knowledge got by the team members, their cognitive ability and so on. The leadership style can be usually divided into autocratic leadership and democratic lead- ership. 3.1. Individual Level of Team Members As the input variable of team effectiveness, individual level of team members has been researched more than 50 years, lots of scholars thought the cognitive ability and task knowledge were the most important factors to fore- cast the individual job performance, and also the key resources of teams [8]. Zarnoth & Sniezek found the higher the cognitive ability of individual was, the higher the team decision-making quality was [9]. Ellis thought the task knowledge got by the important team members had a great effect on the improvement of decision-mak- ing quality and performance [10]. H2a: Cognitive ability and task knowledge of team members are positively correlated with team decision- making quality. Dennis J.D. considered that cognitive ability and task knowledge might influenced the information exchange in team at least two aspects [11]. High cognitiv e ability and task knowledge could help the members to do better personal recommendation on the basis of limited infor- mation, and also could help the members to strengthen the awareness of needing the importan t task information. These two aspects both could encourage more unique in- formation sharing directly or indirectly. Harrison & Pelle- tier thought through empirical study, that cognitive abil- ity and task knowledge of team members could help team members to discuss the relevant information comprehen- sively from various perspectives [12]. The different views to strategy would provide a useful platform for members to discuss during the decision-making process [13]. H2b: Cognitive ability and task knowledge of team members are positively correlated with unique informa- tion sharing. Combined with H1, we can establish the relationship of individual level of team members, information sharing and team decision-making quality. H2c: Cognitive ability and task knowledge of team members have positive effects on team decision-making quality through the mediator of unique information shar- ing. Open Access IB
The Conceptual Model of Influencing Factors and Influencing Mechanism on Team Decision-Making Quality Mediated by Information Sharing 121 3.2. Leadership Style In the teams, leadership is an important and natural be- havior, and has a prominent role on boosting problem solution, controlling orientation and time, esteeming opinion of team members and arousing team members’ enthusiasm. Typical leadership could be classified as autocratic leadership or democratic leadership [14]. Auto- cratic leadership controlled team discussion, communica- tion and task fulfillment; but democratic leadership pro- moted team discussion, and encouraged members to in- volve in the goal-setting process and fulfill the task [15]. In the team discussion, different leadership styles would have different effects on discussing process and final decision-making quality. Autocratic leadersh ip didn’t en- courage team members to discuss, and the leader would express his opinions at the beginning of the decision- making process to govern others’ choice. No discussion would have a bad effect on the decision-making quality and acceptance to decision. On the contrary, democratic leadership would give all members opportunity to ex- press their opinions and make the decision based on the good communication. Thus, the decision-making quality and acceptance to the decision would be improved. H3a: Democratic leadership can improve the team de- cision-making quality more than autocratic leadership. During the team decision-making process, obtaining and using information were mainly completed through team discussion, and the team discussion was controlled and guided by the leader directly. So, the leadership style had a direct effect on information processing. Autocratic leadership style would make the leader’s opinions and views on others’ choice, and largely inhibit information communicating and processing, especially hinder the unique information sharing. On the contrary, democratic leadership style would encourage team members to speak their minds freely, improve the common and unique in- formation mining and acceptance, and increase the utili- zation of information [16]. H3b: Democratic leadership can increase unique in- formation sharing more than autocratic leadership. . Combined with H1, we can establish the relationship of team leadership style, information sharing and team decision-making quality. H3c: Democratic leadership can improves the team decision-making quality through the mediator of unique information sharing more than au tocratic leadership. 4. Relationship of Team Process Factors, Information Sharing and Team Decision-Making Quality Team process factors refer to the factors appeared and existed during the decision-making process, mainly in- cluding team shared vision, conflict, communication and so on. 4.1. Shared Vision Shared vision is the core of team cooperation. It can make the members to interpret the task expectation ac- curately, and make the members’ action to coordinate and adapt with other members’ requirement. Only when the team members accepted the team developing orienta- tion, they would cooperate and communicate with each other [17]. On the one hand, shared vision could contrib- ute to task allocation among members and forming spe- cialization. The higher degree of specialization and learn- ing ability of team members were, the higher decision- making quality was. On the other hand, shared vision could increase the team cohesion, strengthen the coordi- nation of individual’s target and team target, and promote close cooperation of team members. The two roles could both improve the team decision-making quality and ac- ceptance to d ecision [18]. H4a: Shared vision of team members is positively correlated with team decision-making quality. Shared vision could improve the team members’ en- ergy, commitment and targets, and provide an orientation for members to communicate. It could increase informa- tion sharing among the team members, and contribute to high quality and professional information during the de- cision-making process. Under the direction of shared vision, task allocation would be more clear, which not only urged team members to dig for the unique informa- tion related to task, but also improve the quality of in- formation during the decision-making process. Shared vision had an important role on team information proc- essing ability. H4b: Shared vision of team members is positively cor- related with unique information sharing. Combined with H1, we can establish the relationship of shared vision, information sharing and team decision- making quality. H4c: Shared vision of team members has a positive effect on team decision-making quality through the me- diator of unique information sharing. 4.2. Team Conflict Team conflict could be divided into task conflict and re- lationship conflict [19]. Task conflict refers to the cogn i- tive difference owing to the different views of task; rela- tionship conflict refers to the pressure and frustration owing to individual difference, including more emotional factors [20]. Scholars usually considered that task con- flict could largely promote team members to exchange the information and knowledg e related to task and in sp ire Open Access IB
The Conceptual Model of Influencing Factors and Influencing Mechanism on Team Decision-Making Quality Mediated by Information Sharing 122 new ideas, and it could also clear up some misunder- standing to enhance the recog nition and understand ing of task through communication. In a word, task conflict could improve the decision-making quality and team members’ work performance [21,22]. However, Rela- tionship conflict could evoke team members’ negative emotions, such as, angry, tension, anxiety, pressure and frustration, and would make the working satisfaction declined and motivation lacked. Finally, relationship conflict would lead to team decision-making quality de- clined [22,23]. H5a: Task conflict is positively correlated with team decision-making quality. H5b: Relationship conflict is negatively correlated with team decision-making quality. In the decision-making teams, task conflict had the potential to increase the unique information sharing in that advocated of opposing viewpoints will be called on to describe and justify their positions [24]. In the meta- analysis, two methods for inducing task conflict that had received a fair amount of empirical attention were “Dia- lectical inquiry” and “Devil’s advocacy” [25]. Both me- thods attempted to foster task conflict in decision-making teams by forcing members to question assumptions and confront minority positions. Several studies suggested these methods could lead to effective unique information sharing in teams [26]. However, relationship would evoke the negative emotions of members, and lead team mem- bers to battle over the parochial views of individuals or coalitions rather than con solidating the set of information available into a more complex but accurate whole. In other words, relationship conflict might prevent teams from effectively incorporating the unique information [20]. H5c: Task conflict is positively correlated with un ique information sharing. H5d: Relationship conflict is negatively correlated with unique information sharing. Combined with H1, we can establish the relationship of team conflict, information sharing and team decision- making quality. H5e: Task conflict has a positive effect on team deci- sion-making quality through the mediator of unique in- formation sharing. H5f: Relationship conflict has a negative effect on team decision-making quality through the mediator of unique information sharing. 4.3. Decision-Making Method Timmermans divided the team decision-making proce- dure into MAU (multi-attribute utility) decision support and unstructured discussion [27]. MAU model was widely used in decision support, and it supplied a framework of decision problems and a logic order of decision. MAU integrated the interaction of team members as a whole, reduced the negative emotions of group dynamics (e.g.: the dominant position of one or more members in dis- cussing process; low tolerance for the minority view) and improved team decision-making performance. Timmer- mans studied how MAU effected decision-making qual- ity and found MAU had a remarkable effect on subjects’ preference and team consensus, and also had a good ef- fect on members’ satisfaction to decision-making process [27]. H6a: MAU decision support can increase team deci- sion-making quality more than unstructured discussion. MAU model provid ed an an alysis supp ort to assess the merits of each alternative and made the members’ pref- erence and the inconsistency clear, and it improved the different information sharing and exchanging in teams [28]. MAU required all team members to discuss all in- formation and express their viewpoints and could dig for and utilize more unique information than unstructured discussion. H6b: MAU decision support can increase unique in- formation sharing more than unstructured discussion. Combined with H1, we can establish the relationship of team decision-making method, information sharing and team decision-making quality. H6c: MAU decision support can increase team deci- sion-making quality through the mediator of unique in- formation sharing more than unstructured discussion. 4.4. Communication Media With the development of computers and network, many scholars began to learn the effect of communication me- dia on team decision-making quality. Scholars compared the decision-making difference under the conditions of CMC and FTF, but the results were different. Some scholars considered that CMC could increase the deci- sion-making quality more than FTF. Because under the condition of FTF, the opinions of exp erts of higher status could become the mainstream, the other members just participated passively. So, it would lead to groupthink. But under the condition of CMC, owing to lacking of social context clues, members would be more equal. Thus, the teams would generate more thoughts and ideas. Rock & Ayman thought without the interference of non- language information, members would focus on the in- formation processing during the discussion [29]. So, CMC could pre-determinate the successful decision bet- ter than FTF. However, some scholars got the opposite conclusions. Hightower & Sayssed found under the con- dition of CMC, members would discuss more common information rather than unique information, and owing to lacking of non-language information, communication Open Access IB
The Conceptual Model of Influencing Factors and Influencing Mechanism on Team Decision-Making Quality Mediated by Information Sharing 123 and task fulfillment under CMC was more difficult than under FTF [30]. This thesis is inclined to choose the first opinion. H7a: CMC can increase team decision-making quality more than FTF. Some scholars thought under the condition of CMC, members might share their unique information at the same time, and would avoid the situation that some members occupied much discussing time to hamper other members to express views or influent the thought of other members [31]. Equal status of members under CMC would be better for members to participate discus- sion actively and share their common and unique infor- mation. H7b: CMC can increase unique information sharing more than FTF. Combined with H1, we can establish the relationship of communication media, information sharing and team decision-making quality. H7c: CMC can increase team decision-making quality through the mediator of unique information sharing more than FTF. 5. The Internal Relationship between Team Composition Factors and Process Factors The above analyze and summary the influencing mecha- nism of team composition factors and team process fac- tors on decision-making quality. In fact, team composi- tion factors not only can influence the final decision- making quality directly, but also can influence the deci- sion-making quality indirectly through team process fac- tors. So, paying more attention to the effects of team composition factors on team process factors usually is very important to final decision-making quality. Mohammed & Ringseis found during the team interac- tive process, cognitive difference related to task had a direct effect on conflict [32]. Cronin & Weingart put forward “conflict based on mental representation gap”, and pointed out in their research that function diversifi- cation would increase members’ cognitive difference and would lead to members’ interpretation to the necessary information different [33]. Members’ mental representa- tion gap was the source of conflict. Hambrick, Cho & Chen certificated through empirical research that cogni- tive difference would benefit for mobilizing the member to solve the task from multi-viewpoints and stimulate the task conflict [34]. H8: Team members’ cognitive difference is positively correlated with task conflict. Compared with autocratic leadership, democratic lead- ership could benefit for encouraging team members to express their different opinions related to task, and form- ing the mechanism of free expression of doubt in teams. On the other hand, democratic leadership also could benefit for establishing a harmonious atmosphere in teams and reducing the negative effect of conflict. Love- lace, Shapiro & Weingart certificated in their study that democratic leadership could encourage team members express the doubt related to task freely, resolve violent conflicts in time, and play an active role in the team members interaction [35]. H9a: Democratic leadership can increase team task conflict more than autocratic leadership. H9b: Democratic leadership can reduce team rela- tionship conflict more than autocratic leadership. There were two basic ways to establish shared vision: one was through the active initiative of leaders and ac- ceptance of team members, the other was through the collection of team members’ visions. No matter what kind of way, leadership had an important role on estab- lishing shared vision. During the process of establishing shared vision, the opinions of members might be differ- ent. So, the leaders should keep touch with team mem- bers at any time, and help members rather than control them. Refining and publicity for shared vision should be established on the basis of freedom, sincerity and com- munication. So, democratic leadership makes it easier for members to accept shared vision. H10: Democratic leadership can push shared vision ahead easier than autocratic leadership. 6. Conclusion and Limits This thesis puts forward the conceptual model of team composition factors, team process factors, unique infor- mation sharing and team decision-making quality, and infers that team composition factors of individual level, leadership style and team process factors of shard vision, team conflicts, decision-making methods, and communi- cation media influence decision-making quality through the mediator of unique information sharing. This model includes many major influence factors on decision-mak- ing quality, exposes the “black box” between the influ- encing factors and decision-making quality during the field decision making, and analyzes deeply the role of unique information sharing between influencing factors and decision-making quality. This research will give de- cision makers some suggestion and reference of how to increase decision-making quality. 6.1. Strengthen Information Sharing in Teams and Encourage Team Members to Communicate and Think about the Unique Information During the field decision making, the most important factor of high quality decisions was the information Open Access IB
The Conceptual Model of Influencing Factors and Influencing Mechanism on Team Decision-Making Quality Mediated by Information Sharing 124 sharing and communication in the field. Exchange and integration of different information could not only im- prove the individual bias and asymmetric information, but also stimulate the new ideas effectively. But in reality, owing to the biased sampling, team members usually dis- cussed the shared information rather than the unique in- formation, and it made teams of many experts not to pro- duce high quality decision. Therefore, how to strengthen unique information sharing and communicating is most important. Changing composition factors and strength- ening process factors can stimulate the unique informa- tion sharing in part. 6.2. Pay Enough Attention to Team Composition Factors as Much as Team Process Factors Previous studies under IPO frame considered that team process factors were the main influencing factors on team performance, and ignored the effect of team com- position factors. However, recent studies certificated that composition factors not only can influence the unique information sharing and final decision-making quality directly, but also can influence the decision-making qual- ity indirectly through team process factors. So, we should think about the different roles of team composition fac- tors and team process factors and the internal relationship between them, and not favor one or discriminate against the other. The model of “influencing factors—information shar- ing—team decision-making quality” mainly thinks about the internal conditions of teams, and does not consider the external conditions of teams. In fact, under the dif- ferent external conditions, the influential way of each kind of influencing factors would be different. In the future studies, we should research the influence of team composition factors and team process factors on deci- sion-making quality combined with the extern al dynamic environment. REFERENCES [1] N. L. Kerr and R. S. Tindale, “Group Performance and Decision Making,” Annual Review of Psychology, Vol. 55, No. 1, 2004, pp. 623-655. http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.55.090902.1420 09 [2] G. Stasser, “Computer Simulation as Research Tool: The Discuss Model of Group Decision-Making,” Journal of Applied Social Psychology, Vol. 23, No. 5, 1988, pp. 126- 139. [3] G. Stasser, “Information Salience and the Discovery of Hidden Profiles by Decision-Making Group: A ‘Thought Experiment’,” Organizational Behavior and Human De- cision Processes, Vol. 52, No. 1, 1992, pp. 156-181. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(92)90049-D [4] J. R. Larson, P. C. Foster-Fishiman and C. B. Keys, “Dis- cussion of Shared and Unshared Information in Decision- Making Groups,” Journal of Personality and Social Psy- chology, Vol. 67, No. 3, 1994, pp. 446-461. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.67.3.446 [5] G. DeSancits and R. B. Gallupe, “A Foundation for the Study of Group Decision Support System,” Management Science, Vol. 33, No. 5, 1987, pp. 589-609. http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.33.5.589 [6] D. D. Steward and G. Stasser, “The Sampling of Critical, Unshared Information in Decision-Making Group: The Role of an Informed Minority,” European Journal of So- cial Psychology, Vol. 28, No. 1, 1998, pp. 95-113. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-0992(199801/02)28 :1<95::AID-EJSP847>3.0.CO;2-0 [7] L. Lu, Y. C. Yuan and P. L. Mcleod, “Twenty-Five Years of Hidden Profiles in Group Decision Making: A Meta- Analysis,” Personality and Social Psychology Review, Vol. 16, No. 1, 2012, pp. 54-75. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1088868311417243 [8] J. A. LePine, J. R. Hollenbeck, et al., “Effects of Individ- ual Differences on the Performance of Hierarchical Deci- sion-Making Teams,” Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 82, No. 5, 1997, pp. 803-811. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.82.5.803 [9] P. Zarnoth and J. A. Sniezek, “The Social Influence of Condidentce in Group Decision Making,” Journal of Ex- perimental Social Psychology, Vol. 33, No. 4, 1997, pp. 345-366. http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/jesp.1997.1326 [10] A. P. Ellis, “System Breakdown: The Role of Mental Models and Transactive Memory in the Relationship be- tween Acute Stress and Team Performance,” Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 49, No. 3, 2006, pp. 576-589. http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/AMJ.2006.21794674 [11] J. D. Dennis, “Effects of Cognitive Ability, Task Knowl- edge, Information Sharing, and Conflict on Group Deci- sion-Making Effectiveness,” Small Group Research, Vol. 30, No. 5, 1999, pp. 608-634. [12] E. F. Harrison and M. A. Pelletier, “Foundations of Stra- tegic Decision Effectiveness,” Management Decision, Vol. 36, No. 3, 1998, pp. 147-159. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/00251749810208931 [13] B. J. Olson, S. Parayitam and Y. J. Bao, “Strategic Deci- sion Making: The Effects of Cognitive Diversity, Con- flicts and Trust on Decision Outcomes,” Journal of Man- agement, Vol. 33, No. 2, 2007, pp. 196-222. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0149206306298657 [14] K. Lewin, R. Lippit and R. K. White, “Pattens of Aggres- sive Behavior in Experimentally Created ‘Social Cli- mates’,” Journal of Social Psychology, Vol. 10, 1939, pp. 271-279. [15] M. G. Cruz, D. D. Henningsen and B. A. Smith, “The Impact of Directive Leadership on Group Information Sampling, Decision, and Percetions of the Leader,” Com- munication Research, Vol. 26, No. 3, 1999, pp. 349-369. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/009365099026003004 [16] E. Kushell and R. Newton, “Gender, Leadership Style and Subordinate Satisfaction: An Experiment,” Sex Roles, Vol. Open Access IB
The Conceptual Model of Influencing Factors and Influencing Mechanism on Team Decision-Making Quality Mediated by Information Sharing Open Access IB 125 14, No. 3-4, 1986, pp. 203-209. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF00288249 [17] McKee, “An Organizational Learning Approach to Prod- uct Innovation,” Journal of Product Innovation Manage- ment, Vol. 9, No. 3, 1992, pp. 235-245. [18] R. S. Dooley and G. E. Fryxell, “Attaining Decision Qua- lity and Commitment from Dessent: The Moderating Ef- fects of Loyalty and Competence in Strategic Decision Making Teams,” Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 42, No. 4, 1999, pp. 389-402. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/257010 [19] K. A. Jehn, “Enhancing Effectiveness: An Investigation of Advantages and Disadvantages of Value-Based Intra- group Conflict,” International Journal of Conflict Man- agement, Vol. 5, No. 3, 1994, pp. 223-238. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/eb022744 [20] A. C. Amason, “Distinguishing the Effects of Functional and Dysfunctional Conflicts on Strategic Decision Mak- ing: Resolving a Paradox for Top Management Teams,” Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 39, No. 1, 1996, pp. 123-148. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/256633 [21] K. A. Jehn, “A Multimethod Examination of the Benefits and Detriments of Intragroup Conflict,” Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 40, No. 2, 1995, pp. 256-282. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2393638 [22] O. Jansssen, E. Van de Vliert and C. Veenstra, “How Task and Person Conflict Shape the Role of Positive In- terpdependence in Management Groups,” Journal of Man- agement, Vol. 25, No. 2, 1999, pp. 117-141. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0149-2063(99)80006-3 [23] T. W. Porter and B. S. Lilly, “The Effects of Conflicts, Trust and Task Commitment on Project Team Perform- ance,” International Journal of Conflict Management, Vol. 7, No. 4, 1996, pp. 361-376. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/eb022787 [24] D. Tjosvold, “Managerial Implications of Controversy Research,” Journal of Management, No. 11, 1985, pp. 221-238. [25] C. R. Schwenk, “Effects of Devil’s Advocacy and Dialec- tical Inquiry on Decision Making: A Meta-Analysis,” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 47, No. 1, 1990, pp. 161-176. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(90)90051-A [26] D. M. Schweiger, W. R. Aandberg and J. W. Ragan, “Group Approaches for Improving Strategic Decision Making: A Comparative Analysis of Dialectical Inquiry, Devil’s Ad- vocacy and Consensus,” Academy of Management Jour- nal, Vol. 29, No. 1, 1986, pp. 51-71. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/255859 [27] D. Timmermans and C. Vlek, “Effects on Decision Qual- ity of Supporting Multi-Attribute Evaluation in Groups,” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Process, Vol. 68, No. 2, 1996, pp. 158-170. http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/obhd.1996.0096 [28] G. DeSancits and R. B. Gallupe, “A Foundation for the Study of Group Decision Support Systems,” Management Science, Vol. 33, No. 5, 1987, pp. 589-609. http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.33.5.589 [29] S. G. Rock, et al., “Group Decision Making and Per- ceived Decision Success: The Role of Communication Medium,” Group Dynamics, Vol. 9, No. 1, 2005, pp. 15- 31. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/1089-2699.9.1.15 [30] R. Hightower, et al., “The Impact of Computer-Mediated Communication Systems on Biased Group Discussion,” Computers in Human Behavior, Vol. 11, No. 1, 1995, pp. 33-44. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0747-5632(94)00019-E [31] S. K. Lam and J. Schaubroeck, “Improving Group Deci- sion by Better Pooling Information: A Comparative Ad- vantage of Group Decision Support System,” Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 85, No. 4, 2000, pp. 565-573. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.85.4.565 [32] S. Mohammed, et al., “Team Mental Models in a Team Knowledge Framework: Expanding Theory and Meas- urement across Disciplinary Boundaries,” Journal of Or- ganization Behavior, Vol. 22, No. 2, 2001, pp. 89-106. [33] M. A. Cronin and L. R. Weingart, “Representational Gaps, Information Processing and Conflict in Functionally Di- verse Teams,” Academy of Management Review, Vol. 32, No. 3, pp. 761-773. http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/AMR.2007.25275511 [34] D. C. Hambrick, T. S. Cho and M. J. Chen, “The Influ- ence of Top Management Heterogeneity on Firm’s Com- petitive Moves,” Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 41, No. 4, 1996, pp. 659-684. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2393871 [35] K. Lovelace, et al., “Maximizing Cross-Functional New Product Teams’ Innovativeness and Constraint Adherence: A Conflict Communications Perspective,” Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 44, No. 4, 2001, pp. 779-793. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3069415
|